Patients Aged 80 Years and Older Accrue Similar Benefits From Total Parenteral Nutrition Compared to Middle-Aged Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Age is becoming less of a consideration to aggressive medical and surgical interventions. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether patients older than 80 years showed similar gains from total parenteral nutrition (TPN) in terms of nutritional and inflammatory markers compared to patients 35 to 50 years old. A database of patients aged ≥80 years old (group 1) and patients between 35 and 50 (group 2), on TPN for greater than 1 week, was compiled from the Nutrition Support Service (NSS) database. Patients had C-reactive protein (CRP), prealbumin, and albumin drawn twice weekly. Patients were matched 1:1 based on gender, diabetes, smoking, Subjective Global Assessment score, and diagnosis. Both groups showed comparable improvements in nutritional and inflammatory markers. There were no statistically significant differences in weekly changes to prealbumin, albumin, CRP, and CRP:prealbumin (C:P) ratio between group 1 and group 2 patients. Both groups had similar complication rates (line-related thrombosis, catheter-related bloodstream infections, intra-abdominal sepsis), days on TPN, length of hospitalization, and mortality rate. Patients older than 80 years benefit from aggressive nutritional support by administration of TPN. Age should not be used as an exclusion criterion for patients requiring TPN.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".